mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter_string

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the action itself. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or any potential side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a single sentence followed by bullet-point parameter definitions. No redundant information, though the bullet points somewhat repeat the schema. Still efficient and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple setter with 4 undocumented parameters, the description covers the basics and includes examples for the string_value. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., effect must exist) or any constraints. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by listing parameters and providing example values for 'string_value' (e.g., 'hardclip', 'tanh'). However, explanations for other parameters (unit_index, effect_index, parameter_name) are minimal, offering little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Set a string parameter on an audio effect' and gives a concrete example (Waveshaper equation). The tool name also specifies 'string', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_effect_parameter_int and set_effect_parameter_bool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for string parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_effect_parameter_int, set_effect_parameter_bool). No guidance on prerequisites or conditions is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.